progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The <strong>Telmarc</strong> <strong>Group</strong><br />
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC<br />
INTELLECTUAL<br />
Spencer was well known for his views on psychology, sociology, biology, <strong>and</strong> especially<br />
<strong>the</strong> views on Darwinism <strong>and</strong> <strong>individualism</strong>. For Spencer all of life, all of existence was a<br />
continually evolving process. The author continually returns to that fact in all of its<br />
aspects.<br />
Spencer was well read from <strong>the</strong> time he started to write through <strong>the</strong> 1930s. Then he was<br />
attacked unjustly by <strong>the</strong> left wing in American academia, centered at <strong>the</strong> time at<br />
Columbia University, a hotbed of Communists <strong>and</strong> Marxists. For it was in <strong>the</strong> mid 1940s<br />
that Spencer was vilified by <strong>the</strong> one-time Communist history professor at Columbia<br />
University, one Richard Hofstadter.<br />
Hofstadter in his book Social Darwinism uses Spencer's ideas on Darwin in a somewhat<br />
self serving <strong>and</strong> twisted manner to attack both Spencer <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> free market capitalism as<br />
it evolved over <strong>the</strong> century from 1850 to 1950. Hofstadter was well known in leftist<br />
circles as one who could readily take a few apparently disconnected points <strong>and</strong> with what<br />
could be at best described as shabby research methods produce polemics against <strong>the</strong><br />
conservatives <strong>and</strong> right wing advocates in <strong>the</strong> body politic.<br />
Hofstadter was also well know to write "soft" history, what we would expect in a New<br />
Re<strong>public</strong> piece, ra<strong>the</strong>r than hard academic history. Hofstadter was polemical in his style<br />
<strong>and</strong> greatly deficient in primary sources. He was all too often just a recorder of old press<br />
clippings using <strong>the</strong>se as <strong>the</strong> window to <strong>the</strong> world he wanted <strong>the</strong> reader to see ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
addressing <strong>the</strong> reality via primary sources.<br />
In a recent work by Prof. T. Leonard at Princeton University (See Origins of <strong>the</strong> Myth of<br />
Social Darwinism: The Ambiguous Legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in<br />
American Thought 39 ) Prof. Leonard states about Hofstadter <strong>and</strong> Spencer <strong>the</strong> following,<br />
while reviewing <strong>the</strong> issues in "Social Darwinism in American Thought", also called<br />
"SDAT":<br />
"Richard Hofstadter, like many New York intellectuals in <strong>the</strong> 1930s, embraced radical<br />
reform. He joined Columbia University’s Communist Party unit for a brief period in<br />
1938. The more mature Hofstadter grew disenchanted with radical politics, indeed came<br />
to see it as hostile to scholarship. But SDAT, which revised his doctoral dissertation<br />
published in 1939, preserves Hofstadter’s earlier world view, that of a precocious<br />
scholar, still much influenced by his mentors, Merle Curti <strong>and</strong> Charles Beard, who could<br />
say to close friends, “I hate capitalism <strong>and</strong> everything that goes with it” … SDAT also<br />
bears <strong>the</strong> historiographic imprint of Beard’s “rule” that historical interpretation must<br />
assume that “changes in <strong>the</strong> structure of social ideas wait on general changes in<br />
economic <strong>and</strong> social life” ... SDAT is thus sprinkled with unadorned Beardian claims,<br />
such as “Herbert Spencer <strong>and</strong> his philosophy were products of English Industrialism”…"<br />
39 See http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Myth.pdf<br />
Page 52